This final report, and the entire takeover project, involved
a close collaboration among four faculty members at the Rutgers-Newark
campus. We represent three disciplineslaw, education and public
administrationand work under the umbrellas of the Institute on Education
Law & Policy (IELP) and the Joseph C. Cornwall Center for Metropolitan
Studies.

Paul L. Tractenberg, Board of Governors Distinguished
Service Professor and Alfred C. Clapp Distinguished Public Service Professor
of Law, a co-principal investigator of the project, was the primary author
of the Executive Summary and the introduction, and supervised the development
and preparation of the entire Final Report.

Marc Holzer, Professor and Chair of the Public Administration
Department, a co-principal investigator, was a primary author of the reports
municipal intervention section, and participated in the development of
the municipal case studies and bibliographies.

Jerry Miller, an Associate Professor in the Public Administration
Department, was the other primary author of the municipal intervention
section, and, with Professor Holzer, participated in the development of
the municipal case studies and bibliographies.

Alan Sadovnik, Professor and Chair of the Education Department,
was the primary author of the education policy and practices section,
a major contributor to the state-operated school districts section, and
supervised development of the instructional practices bibliography.

Brenda Liss, a consultant to IELP and an experienced
education lawyer, played an invaluable role both in developing new sections
of the Final Report and revising sections that had appeared in the Preliminary
Report. Marla Nierenberg Hanan, a former consultant to IELP, assisted
greatly in the preparation of the Preliminary Report.

Research assistants, Ngoyi Mwabilu, Fred Bogui and Jim
Melitski, graduate students in Public Administration, and Linda Neilan,
Amilcar Perez, Edward Wingren and Elizabeth Speidel, law students, conducted
research, assisted in the drafting of portions of the report and the municipal
intervention case studies, and produced the bulk of the annotated bibliographies
and 50-state report on accountability, state intervention and takeover,
which are included as appendices to this report.

Israel Rodriguez of the Rutgers-Newark Education Department
and Academic Foundations Center provided computer assistance. The law
schools support staff, especially Mimi Moore, Janice Russo and Gwen
Ausby, assisted at every stage of the project, including production of
the Preliminary and Final Reports.

A FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION

DEVELOPING A PLAN FOR REESTABLISHING LOCAL CONTROL
IN THE STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Executive Summary and Recommendations

Background

As a matter of state constitutional law, public education
in New Jersey (and in virtually every other state) is ultimately the states
responsibility. States can, and usually do, delegate by statute and regulation
much of their operating authority to local school districts. In New Jersey,
there are more than 600 districts, and a strong tradition of local control
in education has developed.

Yet, because ultimate responsibility for providing all
students with a "thorough and efficient" education resides in
the state, New Jerseys education authorities have imposed a variety
of statewide requirements on the local districts. Many of these requirements
seek to hold districts accountable for their educational, management and
fiscal performance.

During the past several decades especially, that has
led the state to establish Core Curriculum Content Standards, statewide
assessment programs designed to measure pupil performance against those
standards, and district certification standards and procedures that include
pupil performance measures.

In 1987, the state legislature adopted a law authorizing
the state to take over the operation of school districts unable or unwilling
to correct serious problems that were identified by the certification
process regarding governance, management, fiscal operations or educational
programs in their schools. The failure of districts to meet certification
standards triggers a multi-level corrective action process, which in extreme
cases can lead to state takeover.

Under that statutory procedure, New Jersey was the first
state in the country to take over operation of a school districtJersey
City in 1989. That action foreshadowed a major educational development
that began in earnest in 1990. In a series of landmark decisions in Abbott
v. Burke in the decade since then, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled
that students in the states poor urban districts were being denied
their constitutional right to a "thorough and efficient" education.
The remedies ordered by the court required the state to dramatically increase
funding in the "Abbott districts," and to assure that that funding
led to a wide range of educational reforms. The court also recognized
the need, perhaps even greater as a result of the Abbott reforms, for
a meaningful state accountability system.

In the wake of the early Abbott decisions, the
state also took over operation of two other large urban districtsPaterson
in 1991 and Newark in 1995. In a sense, the states action in the
three state-operated districts dramatizes what we have known for more
than 30 yearsthat the most serious public education problems in
New Jersey and throughout the nation are focused in our urban centers
and disproportionately affect poor, minority students.

Given that knowledge, it is hardly surprising that in
New Jersey, as elsewhere, state intervention, including takeover, has
occurred predominantly in urban areas. The responsibilities of New Jerseys
urban districts are framed by a combination of accountability measures,
district certification and the Abbott remedies. These elements
start by identifying problems that, directly or indirectly, impede the
effective delivery of educational services and then seek to implement
corrective action under the states oversight, supervision or direct
operation.

Issues considered

In that context, there are three interrelated issues
that this study has considered. First, what circumstances should trigger
takeover? Second, what should happen during the period of state operation?
Third, what circumstances should trigger reestablishment of local control,
and by what process should control be returned? Although the studys
title might suggest that the third issue is the primary focus, it is impossible
to consider that issue in isolation from the other two. Indeed, meaningful
recommendations about reestablishment of local control must grow out of
a careful evaluation of the entire system of state intervention.

Research undertakings

The study has proceeded on multiple tracks. One track
has involved an effort to learn as much as possible about the origins,
purposes, operation and results of state takeover and operation of local
school districts in New Jersey. A second has involved a comprehensive
review of relevant literature about state intervention and takeover, as
well as related topics such as educational reform and accountability,
and about analogous municipal takeovers. A third has involved an examination
of comparable state statutes and regulations across the country. Related
to the second and third tracks is a fourth that has sought to identify
"best practices" nationally in the area of state intervention
in local school districts and municipalities. Based on these inquiries,
the study has identified gaps between New Jerseys approach and "best
practices." This in turn has led to recommendations for changes in
the New Jersey approach.

In a preliminary report submitted on June 15, 2001, we
described progress to date, indicated further areas of inquiry, set forth
some initial conclusions and listed some tentative recommendations. In
this final report, we refine and expand our discussion of relevant issues,
we incorporate detailed profiles of each of the state-operated districts
and descriptions of best practices, and we set forth our final conclusions
and recommendations.

1. New Jerseys takeover approach.
Under New Jersey law, state takeover of a local school district is the final
step in a multi-step accountability process. The statute and its legislative
history suggest that takeover is a last resort to be used in extreme cases,
only when a district is unable or unwilling to correct problems that the
accountability process has identified.

Takeover results in removal of the local board of education,
abolishment of the positions of the chief school administrator and other
executive administrative staff, and appointment of a state district superintendent.
One of the initial responsibilities of the state district superintendent
is to reorganize the central administrative staff. Another is to assess
the performance of all of the districts principals and vice-principals,
and to obtain the removal (through an expedited form of the statutory
tenure removal process) of all those who are not performing effectively
or efficiently. One effect of these two requirements has been wholesale
replacement of staff; another, in each state-operated district, has been
wholesale change in the way of doing business.

The takeover law provides for a system of annual and
multi-year reporting of progress by the state district superintendent
to the Commissioner of Education, to the State Board of Education, to
the Legislatures Joint Committee on the Public Schools, to the Legislature
and the Governor. It also provides for a report by the Commissioner to
the State Board of Education after five years of state-operation of any
district. If the Commissioner determines that reestablishment of local
control at that point is not warranted, he is required to submit a "comprehensive
report" documenting "in detail" the reasons for his determination
and estimating how much longer state operation is likely to be necessary.

The law does not provide, however, any specific goals,
quantifiable benchmarks or assessment standards, or procedures for state-operated
districts. Rather, it uses the states certification standards as
the central measure, both for whether a district should be taken over
and whether a state-operated district should be returned to local control.
The certification standards -- eight evaluative elements encompassing
31 indicators of acceptable school district performance  provide
no guidance specifically applicable to state-operated districts or the
reforms required in those districts, or any method of determining whether
those reforms are likely to be sustained after the return to local control.
The certification standards also have no provisions relating to the Abbott
requirements imposed on the states urban school districts. The State
Department of Educations Manual for the Evaluation of Local School
Districts makes no reference at all to state-operated districts or the
Abbott requirements.

2. Literature review.
The literature review relating to school district takeovers, accountability
systems generally, and educational improvement strategies, especially
in urban districts, and the parallel review of municipal takeovers has
produced some important insights and revealed some equally important gaps.
One conclusion is that takeovers in New Jersey and elsewhere seem to have
resulted in more documented successes in management and fiscal areas than
in education programs. That may be because states initial emphasis
usually is on fiscal and management matters, rather than educational matters.
Or the converse may be truestates have focused on fiscal and management
matters because they have believed those matters were more amenable to
relatively rapid improvement than educational performance, especially
pupil achievement. The literature regarding municipal takeovers is consistent
with those conclusions. The dominant theme there is usually fiscal and
management operations rather than service delivery.

A second conclusion is that the literature fully supports
the view that state intervention in school districts and in municipalities
should focus on local capacity building. So long as the state is not contemplating
long-term direct operation of those governmental units, that conclusion
is self-evident. The problem, of course, is execution. Building local
capacity, especially in urban communities confronting major challenges
created by the broader societal and economic context, is a formidable
task. Nonetheless, there are some very helpful studies and reports that
provide guidance about capacity building, and some important insights
that can be gained from other states programs of state operation.

A third conclusion is that adequate resources, effectively
deployed, are essential. Among other things, that means state agencies
have to be well-staffed with the right kinds of personnel to assist local
districts in building their capacity; collaborations with business, higher
education, the nonprofit sector and community organizations have to be
pursued; and local districts must have the wherewithal to employ competent
staff for administrative, supervisory and support as well as instructional
positions, and to provide them with strong professional development programs.

3. Compilation of statutes
and regulations. The compilation of statutes and regulations relating
to takeover and other forms of state intervention has been helpful in
fleshing out the national picture, and in providing useful models for
some of the recommendations contained in this final report.

4. "Best practices."
A composite of the literature search and the compilation of statutes has
pointed us in the direction of both theoretical and real world "best
practices." The California system of state intervention in local
school districts, spearheaded by the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance
Team ("FCMAT"), clearly has emerged as a "best practice."
Certain elements of the systems in Connecticut, West Virginia and Kentucky
have emerged as promising examples of effective state intervention in
school districts, in concept or in practice. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
and Chelsea, Massachusetts have emerged as models of state intervention
in municipal government.

Californias system is the most comprehensive and
most fully implemented system in the country, and has resulted in the
most dramatic success storythe turn-around of the Compton Unified
School District, a district in Los Angeles County with approximately 30,000
students, which was operated by the state for seven years and returned
to local control at the end of 2001. Professor Paul Tractenberg, this
projects co-principal investigator, has had extensive communication
with FCMATs director and staff. He also attended a day-long site
inspection of the Compton school district, and then remained in Compton
for an additional day to interview state and local educational officials.
In addition, Professor Tractenberg has explored with FCMATs director
the possibility that he and a few FCMAT staff members might visit New
Jersey to discuss the California model with staff of the New Jersey Department
of Education and state-operated districts after the submission of this
final report.

The Compton Unified School District was taken over by
the state in 1993. When little improvement had been shown after four years
of state operation, the California legislature authorized FCMAT to perform
comprehensive assessments of the districts performance in the areas
of community relations, personnel management, pupil achievement, financial
management and facilities management; to develop a recovery plan for each
of these areas; and to report every six months on whether the district
had made "substantial and sustained progress" in each area.
The legislature further required the gradual, incremental return of legal
rights, duties and powers of governance to the local board of education
upon a showing that the board and school district officials had the capacity
to take responsibility in each area. FCMAT developed a plan in the form
of a rating scale which measured district performance on 370 highly specific
legal and professional standards. Each standard was rated on a scale of
one to ten, with each rating specifically defined and consistent for all
the performance standards. FCMAT also worked with district officials to
identify measures that would improve performance on each standard.

The district showed steady, gradual improvement over
the next two and a half years. In August 2000, in light of demonstrated
improvement as shown on the rating scale, FCMAT recommended the return
to the local board of authority for community relations and facilities
management, and this recommendation was accepted by the California Superintendent
of Public Instruction. In February 2001, FCMAT recommended return of authority
for pupil achievement, but the Superintendent rejected the recommendation
and state authority over this area continued. In August 2001, FCMAT again
recommended return of authority for pupil achievement and also recommended
return of authority for personnel management and financial management.
This recommendation was accepted, and the district was returned to full
local control in December 2001.

Connecticuts experience with state takeover of
the Hartford school district is similarly noteworthy for the specificity
and comprehensiveness of the goals and objectives of state operation,
as well as for the extent and depth of participation by high-level state
education officials in the institution of reforms in the district. In
1996, the Commissioner of Education issued the "Hartford Improvement
Plan," a set of 48 recommendations for improvement of the Hartford
school district. The district was taken over by the state in 1997, and
the appointed "board of trustees" that replaced the board of
education was required by the takeover statute to implement the 48-point
plan. The State Department of Education devoted significant resources
to the plan; upon takeover, each of the 48 points was assigned to a senior
staff member in the department, and every senior staff member was given
responsibility for implementation of at least one point. Those staff members
have worked with district officials to translate the 48 recommendations
into a set of annual goals and objectives for the district. For the 2000-01
school year, for example, the district had ten goals, each with multiple
specific objectives. The board of trustees has reported quarterly to the
Commissioner on the status of implementation of the 48-point plan, indicating
as to each point whether it has been fully implemented, partially implemented,
or there has been no progress.

West Virginias takeover scheme is significant for,
among other things, the manner and extent to which the local board of
education remains in place and retains some authority. The applicable
statute provides that, upon takeover, the authority of the district board
of education as to the expenditure of funds, employment and dismissal
of personnel, establishment and operation of the school calendar, and
establishment of instructional programs and policies is "limited."
This has been construed to mean that the boards authority over these
areas is removed altogether, but the board remains in existence and it
retains decision-making authority over areas not specified in the statute.
In West Virginias most successful state-operated district, Logan
County, the board retained authority over issues relating to transportation
and maintenance. It continued to meet monthly and to serve in an advisory
role in all of the areas over which it did not have authority. The state-appointed
superintendent discussed all aspects of operation with the board, and
the relationship between the board and the superintendent was not adversarial.
District performance was assessed in accordance with 28 standards developed
to meet the districts specific needs. Based on this assessment,
reestablishment of local control was incremental, and was completed after
four years, when the district had met all 28 performance standards.

West Virginias Office of Education Performance
Audits, independent of the State Department of Education but reporting
to the State Board of Education, is also worthy of consideration. The
office administers the states system of "education performance
audits" conducted by "education standards compliance teams,"
which are teams composed of "persons who possess the necessary knowledge,
skills and experience to make an accurate assessment of education programs."
The office also has a statutory mandate to determine what capacity is
needed in schools to meet state standards and make recommendations for
establishing that capacity; to determine whether there are statewide deficiencies
in the capacity to establish and maintain a thorough and efficient system
of education; to determine the staff development needs of schools and
districts to meet standards; and to identify exemplary schools and school
systems and exemplary practices.

Kentuckys system of assessment and assistance to
school districts, implemented by its Division of Management Assistance,
is also worthy of consideration. A division of the state department of
education, it provides technical assistance to "state assisted districts"
in the development and implementation of plans with specific objectives,
strategies and actions to be taken to correct deficiencies. Kentucky also
has a program of "highly skilled education assistance," in which
"distinguished educators" may be granted up to two years
leave from their employers to provide technical assistance on a full-time
basis to districts in need of assistance.

Much like state intervention in school districts, state
intervention in municipal governance also involves capacity-building strategies.
The municipal intervention approaches used in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
and Chelsea, Massachusetts have emerged as "best practices."
Philadelphia involved continuation in office of local officials, supported
by an intergovernmental authority with power to exert controls over the
citys financial affairs, including the approval of a long-term fiscal
and management plan and the power to withhold state funds if the city
did not follow the plan. Chelsea involved a declaration that the mayors
office was "vacant," reduction of all other elected officials
to advisory status, and appointment of a receiver. The receiver balanced
the budget, modernized and reorganized departments, made numerous financial
and managerial improvements, and made a recommendation to the legislature
for a new form of city government. The Chelsea model is most noteworthy
for the process employed by the receiver for developing the new governance
structure. Building "social capital" was an objective as important
to the receiver as financial or managerial reform; accordingly, the extent
of public involvement in the process, and the resulting degree of support
for the outcome, were remarkable. The important point, for our purposes,
was the manner in which the decision-making process was used to help build
the communitys capacity to govern itself.

Gaps between "best practices" and New Jerseys
approach

New Jerseys approach to state intervention in school
districts seems ill-conceived and poorly executed. The statutory scheme
does not adequately address the complexity of the task of providing quality
educational programs in our states urban districts; moreover, certain
provisions of the statute that begin to address the task have not been
carried out. The statute does not provide for effective assistance to
struggling school districts short of takeover; it does not provide a method
for building district capacity during the period of state operation or
comprehensive assessment of the reforms instituted in a state-operated
district; it does not provide a clear prescription for what is supposed
to be accomplished by state operation. The statute does provide for monitoring
of state-operated districts by the State Department of Education, provision
of technical assistance to those districts, and formal reporting of their
progress toward reestablishment of local control; but none of these provisions
has been implemented.

New Jerseys system of assessment and accountability
was conceived prior to the major developments of the last decade in New
Jersey law relating to urban education  the rulings of the New Jersey
Supreme Court in Abbottv. Burke from 1990 on, and the statutes
and regulations adopted in response to those rulings. If nothing else,
an overhaul is needed to take those developments into account. Even aside
from Abbott, state intervention in New Jersey is part of a system
of command and control by the State Department of Education rather than
collaboration with local school districts. The systems emphasis,
even upon takeover, on accountability through monitoring and assessment
of compliance with certification standards, rather than intervention with
the goal of providing assistance in the provision of quality educational
programs, has resulted in long-term, seemingly hopeless struggles to achieve
even minimal educational improvement.

Other states have coupled their accountability measures
with technical assistance programs. Such an approach should be considered
in New Jersey as well, especially in light of the extra Abbott demands
placed on this states urban districts. An independent agency responsible
for assessment and technical assistance, such as Calfiornias FCMAT,
or an office such as Kentuckys Division of Management Assistance
should be considered. The Technical Assistance Task Force created by the
previous Commissioner in New Jersey, and best utilized in Asbury Park,
is also worthy of further consideration.

At least two other conceptual issues relate specifically
to state operation. First, since a districts inability or unwillingness
to change or improve  i.e., incapacity -- is the trigger for takeover,
then building the districts capacity should be the main focus of
state operation. Yet that does not seem to be the focus. Little or no
attention is paid by the state to building local capacity in state-operated
districts. To the contrary, rather than enhancing local capacity, state
takeover seems to diminish it. The state immediately replaces the main
local district decision makersthe board of education and the superintendentwith
a state selected and hired superintendent, often someone from outside
the district who lacks any personal knowledge of the districts situation,
and the state district superintendent, in turn, replaces the districts
senior managers with outside appointees. The board of education is replaced
by an advisory board, which has no real authority. The dominant takeover
theme is the failure of local decision-makers and the need to replace
them. This has tended to de-legitimize, demoralize and fragment the local
community, and to minimize the prospects of meaningful local capacity
building.

Obviously, if part of what triggered takeover was a dysfunctional
board, it should not continue to have the same authority. The challenge
is to find a way to recast its role, and to create and nurture a structure
that develops into an effective policy-making body. Other states have
provisions that address this concern that are worth considering.

Similarly, if the districts senior managers are
part of the problem rather than the solution, they should be replaced
with administrators dedicated to educational reform and improvement; but
the ability to carry out and sustain those reforms and improvements must
be instilled in long-term district employees and members of the community,
not just outside experts brought in to handle state operation.

A second issue is that state operation of school districts
in New Jersey has lacked direction and coherence. The state has provided
no clear statement of what districts must accomplish under state operation.
As far as we have been able to determine, the state never has issued a
document specific to state-operated districts stating the goals and objectives
of state operation or the standards and benchmarks by which their reforms,
the sustainability of those reforms, and their progress toward return
to local control will be measured. Under the statute, district certification
is the stated goal of state operation, yet when the State Department of
Education issued a revised manual for monitoring and assessment of school
districts in 2000, it did not even mention state-operated districts, let
alone provide guidance on application of the certification standards to
those districts.

Lacking sufficient direction from the state, the three
state-operated districts have developed their own strategic plans and
adopted their own reforms. Their initial focus typically has been on correcting
management and fiscal problems, and, often, that effort has dominated
the first several years of takeover. Greater focus has been placed on
educational programs more recently, but the myriad programs and strategies
initiated in the three districts lack any consistency of approach. While
local vision and creativity are not bad, the vision or theory of the programs
in the state-operated districts is unclear. In any event, developing capacity
for local control does not appear to be among the primary objectives.

The state also never has performed a systematic external
assessment of the progress or improvement in any of the state-operated
districts. Key documents required by the takeover law apparently just
have not been produced -- annual reports on the progress of each state-operated
district by the Commissioner to the State Board of Education, the Governor
and the Legislature; annual reports on the prospects for each districts
return to local control by the Commissioner to the Joint Committee on
the Public Schools and to the Governor; a five-year report by the Joint
Committee to the Legislature and the Governor, and perhaps most troublesome,
the reports by the Commissioner on whether state operation should be extended
in each of the three districts beyond the five-year statutory minimum.
Several external consultants reports have provided some useful information
about individual state-operated districts, especially Newark, but the
only comprehensive reports which have been produced regularly are the
districts own annual reports. Since those reports consist entirely
of self-assessment, and the districts have not been provided with any
clear, specific goals or benchmarks for their efforts, assessment of their
progress has been haphazard.

This relative vacuum regarding how to define and measure
progress in the state-operated districts has been filled, perhaps understandably,
by undue emphasis on student performance on state assessment tests. The
statute refers to achievement of certification as the standard for readiness
for return to local control, and the states system of district certification
includes satisfactory results on student achievement tests. Moreover,
achievement test results appear to provide an objective, quantifiable,
publically-available picture of district performance every year and a
means of tracking trends over time. These perceived values are largely
illusory, however, considering the changes in the state testing program
over the period of state operation of the three districts, changes in
the current tests themselves, and the high rate of pupil mobility in urban
districts. Given these factors, state test results provide only a crude
measure of student performance over time, and they provide even less useful
information about school district performance in areas of administration
and governance. Reliance on student test scores has distracted both the
state and the state-operated districts from searching out more meaningful
standards for measuring progress.

The State Department and State Board of Education have
recognized that achievement test scores, and the certification indicators
generally, are not useful or realistic measures of progress in the state-operated
districts. In truth, few poor urban districts in New Jersey fully satisfy
the certification requirements, and some fare significantly worse than
the state-operated districts. Continuing to rely on these measures will
ensure one of two resultsstate operation of virtually unlimited
duration or reestablishment of local control despite the districts
failure to meet the statutory standard. Neither is likely to be satisfactory
or productive.

Other states, notably California, have established clear,
comprehensive, objective standards and procedures for assessment of the
progress of state-operated school districts toward reestablishment of
local control. These standards include student achievement standards,
but not to the exclusion of other measures of educational improvement
and measures of district capacity to sustain improvement and govern and
manage their operations without state control. New Jersey should consider
the models adopted elsewhere, and establish its own comprehensive system
of assessment of state-operated school districts.

Conclusions and recommendations for reform

New Jerseys three largest urban school districts
have been under state operation for long periods of time, with no clear
understanding about what the states focus should be, or how and
when they should be returned to local control. Some steps have been taken
toward phased reestablishment of local control in Jersey City; some, though
fewer, steps have been taken in Paterson; and political pressure is building
for similar movement in Newark. Without any consistent, comprehensive
method of measuring readiness for return to local control, it is difficult
to determine whether such movement is warranted.

This is not to say there has been no progress in Jersey
City, Newark and Paterson under state operation. Indeed, numerous reforms
have been instituted in each district, and pupil performance appears to
have improved, at least in Jersey City and Paterson. Our conclusion, however,
is that whatever progress may have been achieved has not been as a result
of a coherent structure and plan, with clear and measurable standards
and benchmarks and careful assessment of performance. The question now
is how to reconstitute New Jerseys system of state intervention
and takeover so that it can produce desired results in a time- and cost-efficient
manner. Our answer is in the form of a set of recommendations for accomplishing
this goal.

Many of our recommendations are not new or surprising.
They are derived from our literature search, from prior studies of state-operated
districts, from models in other states, from the Jersey City Transition
Team recommendations, from bills relating to state operation that have
been introduced in the New Jersey Legislature (especially A3030), and
from public discourse about state takeover. This projects findings
and recommendations are distinguished by their focus on an overall strategy
designed to enable the state to play a meaningful role in local educational
improvement without having to operate urban school districts for extended
periods.

To a substantial extent, our findings and recommendations
are forward-lookingthey recommend a new structure for the future.
But, we are mindful of the importance of effective transition back to
local control of the three state-operated districts and have addressed
that challenge in some of our recommendations and, especially, in the
roadmap that concludes this Executive Summary.

We begin with four conceptual recommendations for changes
in the overall approach to state intervention:

Redefine the States Role to Emphasize Support
of and Technical Assistance to Districts Delivered in a Collaborative
Manner. The States relationship to local school districts,
both with regard to state accountability and generally, should be
refashioned from one that emphasizes a command-and-control approach
to one that focuses on support and technical assistance delivered
collaboratively. Of course, in some cases the State may still have
to make and enforce difficult decisions in districts unable or unwilling
to correct major educational and administrative problems, but that
should be a last resort after all other efforts have failed. The State
Department of Education, or another state agency charged with responsibility
for providing the necessary support and technical assistance to local
districts, must itself have sufficient capacity to carry out these
responsibilities effectively.

Make Local Capacity a Cornerstone of the States
Interactions with Districts.The States assessment
of district performance, especially of districts that may be in need
of assistance, should focus systematically on local capacity measures
rather than primarily on student outcomes. State intervention, including
possibly takeover, should be triggered by a determination of local
incapacity to correct problems and improve outcomes. State intervention
should be directed at enhancing local capacity, and full resumption
of local operation should be based on a measured, assessment-based
judgment that local capacity has reached an acceptable level.

Create a Unified System of State Oversight of
Urban Districts, Combining the Monitoring and Assessment Process with
a Process for Assuring Implementation of Abbott Reforms.
At the present time, the Abbott districts must be distinguished from
other New Jersey districts because they have been determined to have
a history of special educational needs and inadequate resources to
deal with them. Several consequences flow from that. First, while
the goal is that the Abbott districts, like all others, will meet
all of the general district certification standards, the Abbott districts
are unlikely to meet those standards, especially those relating to
student achievement on standardized tests, in the near future. Second,
the Abbott mandates contain various programmatic and resource elements
designed to enable these districts to substantially improve their
educational outcomes, but the mandates also impose special responsibilities
on those districts. This suggests that, at least in the near term,
the system of state oversight of the Abbott districts must be different
from the system for other districts. Nevertheless, it should be a
single unified system, incorporating appropriate elements from the
generally applicable monitoring and assessment process, from other
state accountability structures and from Abbott, rather than
two or more parallel and sometimes overlapping systems.

Establish a Clear, Specific System of Standards
and Benchmarks by Which Districts Will Be Assessed, and, in the Case
of Districts Determined to Require State Assistance, Ensure that Competent,
Objective Periodic Assessments Are Carried Out to Measure Progress
and that the Results are Promptly Communicated to the Districts.
A primary problem of the current system is that state-operated districts
have never been given a set of clear and specific standards and benchmarks
by which they can determine when they have satisfied the States
expectations and have earned the right to resume local control. Nor
have they had the benefit of periodic objective assessment of their
progress toward those, or any other, standards and benchmarks. Rather,
they have been left largely to their own devices, to fashion a corrective
plan and to measure progress against it. The state needs a comprehensive
set of district performance standards and a method of measuring compliance
with those standards accurately and objectively. Those standards and
the method of measuring compliance should be used to develop plans
for further improvement in each of the state-operated districts, to
determine the districts needs for technical assistance, and
to measure their capacity for local control. They also should be used
to evaluate the performance of other districts, to determine their
technical assistance needs, and to determine when further intervention
is needed.

Next, we provide a larger set of recommendations that
focus on implementation of these concepts and approach:

Implement Preventive Program. To minimize
the need for state takeover, the state should develop and implement
a well thought out preventive program that might include improved
monitoring of the districts fiscal performance, mandatory financial
and legal training for administrators, enhanced school-based management
efforts, and a long overdue system for collecting, using and disseminating
long-term student performance data.

Modify Takeover Statute to Increase Flexibility.
The statute should be modified to give the state substantially greater
flexibility as to the form and extent of takeover. The modifications
also should expressly authorize gradual or staged reestablishment
of local control after takeover, as evidence accumulates of enhanced
local capacity.

Modify Statutes to Treat Local Capacity as a Deciding
Factor. The statutes should be modified to emphasize local capacity
as a factor in deciding whether or not state intervention, including
takeover, is necessary; what role the state should play under state
operation; and when, and under what circumstances and procedures,
reestablishing local control should occur.

Build Local Capacity. Whenever the state decides
to intervene in, or to take over, a school district, it should focus
its efforts on building local capacity, which involves: (1) clearly
defining local responsibilities; (2) employing adequate numbers of
competent, committed staff to carry them out; (3) providing them with
the necessary resources, support, training, professional development
opportunities and technical assistance; (4) augmenting employee capacity
through collaborations with area higher education institutions, businesses
and community organizations; (5) requiring efforts to involve parents
and community members to the maximum extent possible in all aspects
of local decision-making; (6) monitoring performance and results;
and (7) achieving accountability by a system of rewards and sanctions,
as appropriate.

Build Capacity at the School and Classroom Level.
The focus of state intervention should extend to schools and classrooms
within a district, not just to the district office. This is consistent
with emerging evidence that effective school-based management, in
New Jersey implemented through school management teams, can improve
student performance at least as much as district-level reforms. Obviously,
the district, too, has an important role to play in building school
capacity, by fostering educational vision and leadership, collective
commitment to success, appropriate organizational structures and management,
and effective deployment of adequate resources. At the school level,
capacity building involves school leadership that provides direction,
guidance, and support; school goals that are clearly identified, communicated,
and enacted; a school faculty that collectively takes responsibility
for student learning; school discipline that establishes an orderly
atmosphere conducive to learning; and school academic organization
and climate that challenges and supports students toward higher achievement.

Strengthen the Entire Educational Delivery System.
Broadly speaking, the goal is to have both district-level and school-level
capacity directed at providing meaningful curriculum and programs,
presented by competent, committed teachers and other professionals,
to small classes of students, equipped with up-to-date books, materials
and technology, in safe, modern, attractive facilities, with necessary
supplemental services to ensure that students can focus on learning,
and with modern data systems that permit the monitoring and assessment
of individual student performance. In addition to those broad categories,
the Abbott mandates impose some special capacity requirements, including
high quality, well-planned early childhood education for all three
and four-year olds and whole school reform programs in all elementary
schools.

Provide Technical Assistance. The state should
develop and implement a system for providing effective, intensive
technical assistance to administrators and supervisors in school districts
found to be in need, both to avoid takeover and to increase district
capacity during the period of state operation. The state should provide
all districts in need, including state-operated districts, with ongoing
technical assistance, especially with regard to the standards as to
which those districts are not demonstrating adequate progress. There
are many ways to structure an effective technical assistance program,
but clearly that function should be separated from the state education
departments compliance functions. In some states, a separate
departmental division provides the technical assistance. Alternatively,
a team of trained technical assistance providers drawn from current
or former school district personnel can be established. The State
already has taken limited advantage of the valuable resource that
exists in the form of skilled, experienced superintendents, business
administrators, supervisors and teachers who could share their knowledge
and experience. It should consider expanding the use of such personnel.

Create an Independent State Agency. As another
possibility, New Jersey should seriously consider vesting responsibility
for assessment of and technical assistance to school districts in
an objective and expert state-level agency, which is independent of
the state education department. Californias Fiscal Crisis and
Management Assistance Team is a promising model. This agency should
not have authority to make ultimate decisions about state intervention,
takeover or reestablishing local control, but rather should make recommendations
to the Commissioner and/or State Board of Education. As an alternative
to an independent agency, the state could arrange for a program of
technical assistance to be organized and supervised by universities
or other collaborators.

Clarify Expectations for State-operated Districts.
As part of a recovery, or corrective action, plan, clear and specific
standards and benchmarks should be established for state-operated
districts so that they understand precisely what is expected of them
during takeover and what they will be required to accomplish as a
condition of reestablishing local control. The standards and benchmarks
should emphasize building the capacity to govern and operate the district
without state control. The recovery plan should be linked to the circumstances
that triggered state intervention and to the technical assistance
process that occurred prior to establishment of state operation. If
poor student performance was a significant part of the problem that
led to state intervention, measures of student performance, including
student test scores, should be included among the benchmarks, but
they should not dominate the process. For Abbott districts,
the goals and benchmarks also should clearly reflect the special requirements
imposed by that decision.

Assess Progress Against Benchmarks, and Develop
Timely, Responsive Reports. During the period of state operation,
the assessment agency should periodically assess the districts
progress against the established standards and benchmarks, and should
widely disseminate the results.

Modify Statutes to Allow Return when Circumstances
Indicate Capacity for Local Control. The decision about reestablishing
local control should be thoughtful and responsive to the totality
of relevant circumstances, not be a mechanical response to student
test scores or other ostensibly objective measures. The basic standard
should be capacity for local control. A phasing-in of local control
should be permitted where appropriate. For instance, a board that
demonstrates capacity to assume authority over policy development
matters but not fiscal matters might be given authority over the former
but not the latter.

Modify Statutes to Provide More Flexibility Regarding
the Composition and Operation of the Board of Education. Under
current law, the manner in which the board of education is constituted
and functions throughout state operation and during the transition
back to local control is inconsistent with our recommendations
major thrusts. The onset of state operation displaces the existing
board and replaces it with a purely advisory 15-member body largely
appointed by the Commissioner. Four years later, a nine-member board
is elected, if possible from the existing advisory board, and it may
vote on district matters subject to the state superintendents
veto power. Within one year of reestablishment of local control, the
takeover statute provides that the districts voters can decide
whether to have an elected or appointed board, but whatever their
choice the board presumably will from then on be similar in number
and function as other boards of the chosen classification (e.g.,
with nine appointed or elected members).

This approach has a number of major deficiencies. First,
it undermines our emphasis on the building and use of local capacity
from the earliest feasible time. Second, it increases the possibility
that reestablishing local control might return the district to old patterns.
Our strong recommendation is that a new system of "structured flexibility"
be adopted instead. At the start of state operation, this system should
permit the Commissioner, with the approval of the State Board, to continue
the existing board of education in place, with appropriately reduced
functions and powers, or to reconstitute the board in part or in whole.
In either case, the Commissioner should be authorized to appoint additional
members, on the recommendation of a local advisory body or the mayor,
to represent higher education, business, civic and community organizations,
and parents. This would institutionalize the contributions of these
constituencies and reduce the possibility of a board falling back into
old patterns that contributed to the need for state takeover. The board
also should include the state district superintendent and a representative
of the Commissioner as non-voting members.

As the board of education and professional staff demonstrate
increased local capacity to operate the district effectively, the boards
functions and powers should be augmented appropriately. For a period
of several years after reestablishment of local control, additional
members appointed by the Commissioner should continue to serve on the
board to ensure a full and effective transition. Thereafter, as under
existing law, the local community should determine whether it prefers
an elected or appointed board.

Provide for School Ethics. The School Ethics
Law should be amended to eliminate any ambiguity as to its applicability
to state-operated school districts and to provide that any board member
or administrator who violates or refuses to accept its terms shall
be disqualified from service.

Continue Oversight after Return to Local Control.
Some heightened state oversight should continue after full local control
has been reestablished. The assessment agency should continue for
a specified number of years (such as five) to monitor the districts
performance as measured against the established standards and benchmarks.

Use State Operation to Develop Urban Education
Models. State operation of New Jerseys three largest school
districts provides an extraordinary opportunity for the state department,
in collaboration with area universities, businesses and other organizations,
to develop models for other districts, especially urban districts.
This could extend to a range of matters. As suggested above, one that
is specifically applicable to poor urban districts relates to implementation
of Abbotts requirements. Others could be even broader in scope.
The state could use state-operated districts as models for restructuring
of districts through school-based management, so that district offices
increasingly function as service centers to schools and teachers.
They could demonstrate how enhanced recruitment, retention and professional
development of teachers could be put in place.

Taking all these recommendations into account, the following
is an overview of the approach we contemplate for reestablishment of local
control in the three stat-operated districts. In our conversations with
the State Department of Education, this overview has been referred to
as a road map or blueprint for the process of reestablishing local district
control. We prefer the term "road map" because it conveys a
more dynamic sense than the term "blueprint." (To some extent,
it reflects the current situation in the existing state-operated districts
under the current statutes. The road map might be different for other
districts in which state operation might be established in the future,
if the overall system of state intervention were changed, in line with
our recommendations above.)

We note that this is a generic model, applicable to all
three current state-operated districts. The standards of acceptable school
district performance should be the same for all three, although the findings
of the recommended comprehensive assessments will differ, as will the
extent and type of technical assistance provided to each district, and
the timing and extent of return of authority to the three boards of education.
The model also could be adapted for use in districts other than the state-operated
districts that are found to be in need of assistance.

We recommend that the following road map be implemented
as soon as possible:

The state should specify a comprehensive but manageable
set of standards against which school district performance in areas
such as curriculum and instruction, personnel management, professional
development, policy development, community relations, finance and
facilities should be measured.

These standards should be derived from multiple sources,
including state certification standards, and also should reflect the
Abbott requirements specifically imposed on urban districts.

The standards should emphasize capacity to govern
and operate the school district, and they should be specific and objectively
measurable. The state also should specifically define acceptable levels
of performance  benchmarks  with respect to each of the
standards.

The state, preferably through an independent agency
or a collaborative arrangement with a university or private entity,
should ensure that a comprehensive assessment is made of each districts
performance on each of the standards. This should be done as soon
as possible to serve as a baseline for determining how the State should
proceed with respect to each of the districts.

If the assessment indicates that the district has
achieved the performance profile specified by the state in each of
the areas in which standards have been set, the Commissioner and State
Board of Education should restore local control in those areas. If
a district is found to have met the standards in one or more areas
already, local control in those areas may be restored immediately.
If the district has met the state standards in all of the areas, full
authority and control should be restored.

If a district does not meet the standards in one
or more areas, the state should determine, based on the assessors
recommendation and in collaboration with the district, what type and
extent of assistance should be provided to enable the district to
meet those standards; and a recovery plan with provision for appropriate
technical assistance should be developed and implemented as soon as
possible. The plan also should enable the district to serve as a model
of educational reform and effective school district administration
for other districts.

An independent evaluator should regularly monitor,
and report to the district and the department, specific results in
terms of the districts progress toward acceptable performance
levels. When the district has made sufficient improvement that it
meets all the performance standards established by the state, full
authority and control should be restored.

During the period of state operation, the board of
education should include four appointed non-voting members, in addition
to the nine elected members. The appointed members should include
representatives of a local institution of higher education, the local
business community, local civic or community organizations, and parents.
They should be appointed by the Commissioner, upon the recommendation
of the mayor or local governing body. Additionally, the state district
superintendent and a representative of the Commissioner should serve
as non-voting members of the board.

Upon a determination that the board of education
has the capacity to exercise authority in all areas of district operations,
the board should be granted authority to initiate a superintendent
search. With the appointment of a local superintendent, local control
will be reestablished, subject only to several transitional measures.
The board of education, as constituted when local control is reestablished,
should remain in existence for a period of time, perhaps two years.
Additionally, the state district superintendent might remain, in an
advisory capacity, for a similar period of time. Under the Compton
model, the state superintendent remains in a monitoring capacity for
two years after the local superintendent has been appointed. Finally,
a representative of the Commissioner should continue to serve as a
non-voting member of the board for five years after reestablishment
of local control.

By the end of the transitional period, as under the
current takeover law, the local voters should determine whether they
prefer an elected or appointed school board. Prior to that classification
election, the board of education should be required to gather information
and inform the public about the various forms of board structure,
and to provide opportunities for meaningful public discussion.